Today, the Boston Globe reports that Stanley Z. Levitt, a former religious studies teacher at the prestigious Maimonides School in Brookline, is accused of having molested up to five former students 30 years ago. The Orthodox Rabbi, who also faces charges of sexual abuse in Philadelphia, is hoping to get the charges dropped based on the age of the allegations.
Among the many disturbing claims made by the former students is one man who says, on a field trip to Montreal, Levitt directed the class in a naked mikvah. Wildly inappropriate.
As someone who grew up in Boston during the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals in the early 2000s, I have to wonder – isn’t this much, much worse? We were able to blame the Catholic Church itself for the priest scandals. Nobody was all that surprised that an institution which forces its clergy to be celibate ended up with a bunch of wrinkly hands up altar boys’ robes. But, in Judaism, we acknowledge the glorious gift of sex and allow our clergy to be married and have all the bearded kink they want. So, basically, all this dude can hang on is the old “It was a long time ago” defense. Good luck.
These unfortunate events are not a single groups problem. It is a problem that crosses cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds. The question is how the religious authorities handle the allegations when they come to light. Do they hide the issue, protect the guilty parties and their wallets or do they protect the victims. The blame on the Catholic church is largely due to the cover up. The social aspects are a secondary problem that the church must address itself.
I remember reading, unfortunately not where, that statistically, there is no greater occurrence of sexual abuse among Catholic priests than among the general populace.
I suspect it’s probably the same for rabbis too. But there are less rabbis overall in the world than there are Catholic priests, so we hear about it less.
Yes, one might expect religious clergy to be different than the general populace. But that expectation may be misplaced.
“..in Judaism, we acknowledge the glorious gift of sex and allow our clergy to be married and have all the bearded kink they want”
Ummm…PARTIALLY true! Marriage allowed for heterosexuals! Major exception: Judaism does not condone homosexuality or, to be fair, only PORTIONS of LIBERAL JUDASIM are homo-affirming while the remainder either raises a collective eyebrow at or blatantly condemns homosexual activity.
This man wasn’t engaged in an Eyes Wide Open-esque affair with another man however. IF the charges are true, this man was molesting young boys which would make him a Pedophile…not to be confused with a Homosexual.
But I wonder from my point, which is: While Judaism doesn’t forbid sexual activity for it clergy, it does restrict it and is enormously heteronormative! (Yes, even the wonderful, progressive, open-minded branches of liberal Judaism are heteronormative, which results in the oppression of those who don’t conform to it.)
Oh…and one last thing….
>”Among the many disturbing claims made by the former students …Levitt directed the class in a naked mikvah”…
I’m not getting the outrage in that. The mikvah is always naked. It isn’t unusual for there to be a line of naked men waiting to get into the mikvah in the morning…
Among the many disturbing claims made by the former students is one man who says, on a field trip to Montreal, Levitt directed the class in a naked mikvah. Wildly inappropriate.
All religions of all times are all in reality based on cultish sexual exploitation of young people and animals – mikvah is code for “wet purification” ritual…